Hi Maksim, * Maksim Yevmenkin <maksim.yevmenkin_at_gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 9:55 AM, Ed Schouten <ed_at_80386.nl> wrote: > > * Maksim Yevmenkin <maksim.yevmenkin_at_gmail.com> wrote: > >> so, for now, i think we should keep rfcomm_sppd(1) as it is. if this > >> is not an option (with new tty subsystem) then we should convert it to > >> use nmdm(4) or something similar. > > > > Well, the problem with the current approach is that if you remove > > "device pty" from your kernel config, it won't work. With MPSAFE TTY we > > switched to Unix98-style pseudo-terminals, so the preferred mechanism is > > to call posix_openpt() (or open /dev/ptmx) and use ptsname() to > > determine which character device to use. > > is there a way allocate tty with a given name under "new world order"? No, there isn't. I have been thinking about this. Allowing pseudo-terminals to be allocated with a certain name would allow us to do things like implementing device drivers as a daemon in userspace. > > I won't change anything now, but will keep my patch at the before > > mentioned URL. > > like i said, the only problem i have here is that any rfcomm_sppd > callers will have to do extra work to figure which tty was allocated. > that is the biggest difference from user's point of view. Well, we already have existing tools that use such an approach as well, like mdmconfig. They print a name of the md device to stdout. I'm not saying I'm 100% happy with this approach, but it's more correct than just reserving a certain pseudo-terminal device name. -- Ed Schouten <ed_at_80386.nl> WWW: http://80386.nl/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:39:42 UTC